Microsoft AZ-104 Exam Dumps, Practice Test Questions

100% Latest & Updated Microsoft AZ-104 Practice Test Questions, Exam Dumps & Verified Answers!
30 Days Free Updates, Instant Download!

Microsoft AZ-104 Premium Bundle
$79.97
$59.98

AZ-104 Premium Bundle

  • Premium File: 606 Questions & Answers. Last update: Nov 5, 2026
  • Training Course: 132 Video Lectures
  • Study Guide: 458 Pages
  • Latest Questions
  • 100% Accurate Answers
  • Fast Exam Updates

AZ-104 Premium Bundle

Microsoft AZ-104 Premium Bundle
  • Premium File: 606 Questions & Answers. Last update: Nov 5, 2026
  • Training Course: 132 Video Lectures
  • Study Guide: 458 Pages
  • Latest Questions
  • 100% Accurate Answers
  • Fast Exam Updates
$79.97
$59.98

Microsoft AZ-104 Practice Test 26

Question 250

A security policy mandates Entra-based authorization for Blob Storage rather than SAS or API requests signed directly with the storage account key. The team has migrated clients to Entra access. Which storage account setting should it consider enforcing?

  1. Publish both access keys as read-only metadata in a shared document
  2. Remove Azure RBAC Blob Data Contributor from all migrated applications
  3. Enable anonymous access for all blob containers
  4. Disallow Shared Key authorization for the storage account after validating workload compatibility

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

Disabling Shared Key access rejects supported requests authorized with the account key, strengthening the intended Entra-based access boundary. Compatibility must be checked for applications that still rely on the key.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Account keys grant powerful data authorization; publishing them increases exposure and contradicts the prohibition on key-based access.

B:

The applications need Entra data-plane authorization. Removing their roles would break authorized access without controlling legacy Shared Key calls.

C:

Anonymous blob access bypasses the identity boundary that the policy is trying to establish. It does not disable requests signed with a storage key.

Question 251

An attacker obtained a service SAS signed with storage account key1. Security must invalidate that key-signed token, while clients already using key2 should continue to work. Which immediate credential change addresses the compromised token?

  1. Delete only the blob container SAS stored access policy even though the leaked SAS was ad hoc
  2. Regenerate key1 after assessing legitimate clients that still depend on it
  3. Set the storage account SAS expiration policy to Log only
  4. Remove the compromised caller’s Blob Data Reader role but leave key1 active

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

A service SAS signed with key1 becomes invalid when the signing account key is regenerated. Key2 clients need not be regenerated, although any legitimate key1 clients or tokens must be migrated or reissued.

Incorrect Answers

A:

A stored access policy can revoke a service SAS bound to it; an ad hoc key-signed token with no policy relationship is unaffected. Rotating the signing key addresses that token family.

C:

The Log action records tokens that violate the recommended interval but still allows them. It does not invalidate an otherwise valid already leaked key-signed SAS.

D:

A key-signed SAS authorizes use of the key independently of that caller’s data-plane RBAC role. Removing Reader does not invalidate the captured signature.

Question 252

A general-purpose v2 account has AllowSharedKeyAccess set to false. Blob clients authenticate by Microsoft Entra ID, while a legacy application presents a service SAS signed using an account key. A new service issues user delegation SAS tokens. Which behavior should the administrator expect?

  1. All blob reads become anonymous when Shared Key authorization is disabled
  2. The service SAS is rejected, but a valid user delegation SAS can continue to authorize Blob requests
  3. Both SAS types succeed because neither token is a storage account key
  4. The user delegation SAS is rejected while the account-key service SAS continues

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

A service SAS depends on Shared Key authorization and is denied with that account property disabled. A user delegation SAS derives from Entra authorization and remains valid if its own scope and expiry allow the request.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Disabling one authorization mechanism does not enable public anonymous access. Anonymous access has its own account and container policy, and protected data remains protected.

C:

A service SAS carries a signature derived from the account key even though the client presents only a token. Disabling Shared Key rejects that authorization class.

D:

This reverses the key distinction: user delegation is secured by Entra, while service SAS uses the Shared Key method that was expressly disabled.

Question 253

An administrator uses a custom Azure role to grant a developer permission to inspect the properties of a storage account. The developer can read the account but cannot list its access keys, which is an intentional security boundary. Which extra ARM operation would be needed for key listing if approved?

  1. Add the Microsoft.Storage/storageAccounts/regenerateKey/action operation, omitting listKeys/action
  2. The authorized role would need the `Microsoft.Storage/storageAccounts/listKeys/action` management operation
  3. Add the `Microsoft.Storage/storageAccounts/read` operation again
  4. Add only Storage Blob Data Reader

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

Reading account metadata does not automatically allow retrieval of powerful shared access keys. Key listing is a separate ARM Action and should be tightly limited because it can enable broad data access.

Incorrect Answers

A:

RegenerateKey authorizes changing key material, not the separate ARM ListKeys operation the task asks about. The custom role needs listKeys/action if retrieving account keys is explicitly permitted.

C:

The user already has account metadata read permission. Repeating the same Action cannot satisfy a distinct list-keys operation.

D:

Blob Data Reader permits specified blob data reads using identity, not disclosure of storage account shared keys. It does not grant listKeys/action.

Question 254

An operations team has configured a storage account SAS expiration policy with an upper validity interval of 24 hours. A legacy application still sends an account SAS with a signed start and a 72-hour signed validity interval. Security now requires the storage service to deny the noncompliant requests rather than merely record violations. What change addresses the requirement?

  1. Change the SAS expiration action from Log to Block while retaining the 24-hour maximum
  2. Continue using Log because logging out-of-policy SAS always denies the request at the data plane
  3. Enable blob soft delete, which rejects account SAS tokens with long validity intervals
  4. Rotate the secondary storage account access key, which automatically configures every SAS expiry policy to 24 hours

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

A storage SAS expiration policy compares the signed expiry minus signed start with its configured upper limit. Under Block, Azure Storage rejects out-of-policy requests, including this 72-hour SAS against a 24-hour rule. Under Log it merely records violations and permits requests; the explicit change to Block matches the enforcement requirement.

Incorrect Answers

B:

Log is designed for migration, monitoring and diagnostics. With the configured logging pipeline, requests using SAS tokens that exceed the maximum can be recorded in the SAS expiry status field, but they're not denied on that basis. Keeping Log fails the requirement to prevent actual access through the overlong credential.

C:

Blob soft delete helps recover deleted blobs during its retention window; it isn't a SAS credential-length policy engine. A caller with an otherwise valid SAS may still issue permitted reads or writes regardless of soft-delete settings. Expiry enforcement belongs to the storage account SAS expiration action.

D:

Rotating an access key can invalidate tokens signed by that particular key, affecting legitimate clients as well; it does not establish a maximum SAS lifetime or change the current expiration action. The goal is ongoing rejection of all out-of-policy SAS requests, so use the account policy's Block action.

Question 255

An administrator wants to stop newly written applications from embedding storage account access keys in code. The account already supports managed identities and has some legacy clients not yet migrated. Which migration principle best reduces the risk before disabling Shared Key authorization?

  1. Disable Shared Key without determining which applications rely on it
  2. Rotate the account keys but continue deploying applications with those renewed keys embedded in their configuration
  3. Assign Storage Blob Data Contributor to application developers but keep every existing application using embedded storage account keys
  4. Inventory callers that use keys or account-signed SAS and migrate supported workloads to Entra data roles before enforcing Shared Key denial

Explanation

Correct Answer

D:

Disabling Shared Key can break legacy clients immediately. An ordered identity migration preserves service while removing long-lived shared credentials from new code.

Incorrect Answers

A:

An abrupt prohibition can cause outages when undiscovered workloads authenticate with keys or service/account SAS. The requirement asks for safe migration as well as stronger access controls.

B:

Rotation helps limit exposure of an existing key but perpetuates the same shared-secret pattern. Inventory legacy clients, migrate supported callers to Entra authorization, then disable Shared Key only when compatibility permits.

C:

Giving humans additional blob data roles does not migrate running applications away from Shared Key. Inventory the callers and move supported app workloads to managed identities or Entra-based data roles before disabling Shared Key to avoid breakage.

Question 256

A storage account enforces a one-hour SAS expiration policy with Block action. An application generates an account-key-signed service SAS that expires 30 minutes after issuance but omits the signed-start field `st`. Storage returns an out-of-policy authorization failure even though the signed expiry is within the upper limit. What should the application change when issuing a replacement token?

  1. Include a signed UTC start time `st` and an expiry `se` within the allowed interval, then generate a new valid signature
  2. Increase the token expiry to two hours while still omitting `st`, because only longer tokens need a signed start
  3. Append a plain-text `st` query parameter to the already issued URL without recalculating the SAS signature
  4. Assign Storage Blob Data Reader to the token recipient but leave the rejected account-signed SAS unchanged

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

With a SAS expiration policy enabled, Azure Storage calculates the interval from signed start to signed expiry, and Block treats a token missing the signed-start field as out of policy. The application must issue a newly signed service SAS carrying `st` and `se` within the configured one-hour window. Correct signature construction matters: changing signed fields after issuance invalidates the token. The account must also still allow Shared Key authorization.

Incorrect Answers

B:

An expiry beyond the one-hour limit would make this token violate the policy even if its start time were present. The current problem is a missing signed-start field, not insufficient remaining lifetime. Changing 30 minutes to two hours while continuing to omit `st` adds a second violation and cannot cause Block enforcement to admit the request.

C:

SAS query fields are protected by the signature. The application's existing account-key signature was calculated from the original signed fields, so manually inserting `st` into the distributed URL does not produce a properly signed replacement credential. The producer must regenerate the complete SAS with a correct signed start and valid expiry, then distribute the new URL.

D:

Storage Blob Data Reader grants Entra data-plane permissions to an identity, but this request is presenting an account-key-signed service SAS. Its rejection is caused by the account's SAS expiration-policy requirements, not by the consumer lacking an Entra Blob Data role. The app must reissue a policy-compliant signed token or migrate to a separate identity-based authorization model.

Question 257

A company previously distributed connection strings containing its storage account key. The security team can no longer identify which client leaked one string. What is the principal disadvantage of the account key relative to scoped Entra data access?

  1. Rotate the shared account key regularly and treat each new key as a user-specific, resource-scoped identity
  2. Treat the account key as a highly privileged shared secret and move clients toward managed identity with limited data roles
  3. An account key always restricts a caller to one blob path
  4. Entra data roles are valid only when storage public access is enabled

Explanation

Correct Answer

B:

A leaked account key can often authorize many data operations and does not distinguish callers by individual user identity. Scoped Entra access reduces blast radius and improves principled attribution.

Incorrect Answers

A:

Key rotation limits the lifetime of leaked credentials, but the rotated account key remains a broad shared secret rather than a per-client identity with scoped Azure RBAC. Migrating to managed identities enables attribution and least privilege.

C:

Account keys are not intrinsically one-blob delegated credentials. They are broad signing secrets and should not be distributed as though they were narrow SAS tokens.

D:

Identity authorization can operate over private and restricted networks. Enabling public access is not a prerequisite for using an Entra principal for Blob operations.

Question 258

An Azure Files storage account has been manually integrated with on-premises Active Directory Domain Services for SMB. The domain-joined Windows clients have working DNS, TCP 445 access and suitable share-level and NTFS permissions. Kerberos cannot obtain a service ticket because the computer object representing the storage account has no CIFS service principal name. What should the administrator configure on that AD DS object?

  1. Register the SPN `cifs/<storage-account>.file.core.windows.net` on the AD identity representing that Azure Files storage account
  2. Grant only the Azure Reader ARM role to the file-share users so the domain controller creates the CIFS SPN automatically
  3. Register an HTTP SPN for the Azure Blob endpoint because an SMB client authenticates to the Blob REST API
  4. Set the file share's public network access to All networks, which automatically creates an AD DS Kerberos service principal

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

AD DS-based Azure Files SMB authentication requires an AD principal representing the storage account with a CIFS SPN for the file service endpoint. When manually domain-joining the account, configure `cifs/<storage-account>.file.core.windows.net` on that principal so the domain controller can issue the expected Kerberos service ticket. The already-verified network, share RBAC and NTFS settings cannot substitute for a missing service identity; preserve the SPN's uniqueness and correct domain account.

Incorrect Answers

B:

An Azure Reader assignment is an ARM management permission and does not register a Kerberos SPN in on-premises Active Directory. The Windows client must first acquire a service ticket for the storage account's CIFS identity, and only then do share-level roles and NTFS ACLs determine data access. Changing Reader therefore leaves the specific missing-SPN authentication failure intact.

C:

The client is mounting a file share using SMB and Kerberos, so the service principal must identify CIFS on the Azure Files endpoint. An HTTP or Blob service SPN describes a different protocol and target and will not satisfy the requested `cifs/<account>.file.core.windows.net` ticket. That mismatch would continue to cause Kerberos authentication errors even with correct network reachability.

D:

Public network access controls which network sources may reach the storage endpoint; it does not create or repair Active Directory service principals. The stem already establishes that TCP 445 and routing work, so broadening the public endpoint could increase exposure without addressing ticket acquisition. Register the correct AD DS CIFS SPN while maintaining the restricted network posture.

Question 259

An Azure Files SMB share is configured for identity-based authentication. An employee has the appropriate Azure share-level SMB Data Contributor assignment, but still gets Access denied on a specific directory. Their peers can access other folders. What permission boundary should be investigated next?

  1. The NTFS directory and file access control entries for the employee or relevant group
  2. Remove the existing share-level role assignment and assign the employee only Azure Reader
  3. Regenerate the storage account access key and ask the same employee to retry using identity-based SMB
  4. Change the share quota while preserving the existing NTFS folder permissions

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

Share-level authorization alone does not guarantee access to every file. NTFS ACLs on directories and files also govern authenticated SMB operations and can exclude this user despite an appropriate share role.

Incorrect Answers

B:

This change removes a necessary SMB data-plane share permission and replaces it with management-plane read visibility. It cannot resolve a specific folder-level NTFS denial.

C:

Key rotation changes shared-key credentials; it does not alter the NTFS ACL that denies an already authenticated user access to one directory.

D:

Share quotas limit overall stored file capacity rather than who can traverse a specific directory. A user-specific access denial persists until the applicable NTFS security descriptors are assessed.

Question 260

An identity-authenticated Azure Files SMB share has a default share-level permission of Storage File Data SMB Share Elevated Contributor for all authenticated users. One employee also has a specific Storage File Data SMB Share Reader role assignment on that share, and the folder NTFS ACL allows the employee to modify a document. Which effective share-level permission applies when the employee connects?

  1. The higher-level default Elevated Contributor share permission applies; the specific Reader assignment does not downgrade it
  2. The specific Reader assignment always overrides the default permission, so the employee is limited to read-only SMB access
  3. Any identity with both assignments is denied at the share automatically until one Azure role assignment is removed
  4. Share-level Azure RBAC is ignored completely once an NTFS Modify ACE exists, leaving no Azure Files share-level authorization check

Explanation

Correct Answer

A:

Microsoft documents that if an Azure Files SMB user receives both the default all-authenticated-users share permission and a specific user/group RBAC assignment, the higher privilege level wins. Here the default Elevated Contributor outranks the explicit Reader role. The employee can use that share-level grant subject to the separate NTFS ACL, which the stem also allows. This does not imply that a Reader assignment is a deny rule.

Incorrect Answers

B:

The explicit Reader assignment is a lower share-level permission than the configured all-authenticated-user Elevated Contributor default. Azure Files does not treat a more specific lower-privilege assignment as an overriding deny in this configuration. Expecting Reader to reduce the default would give the wrong result; to impose read-only access, the administrator must redesign the default and specific grants.

C:

Azure Files does not inherently reject a user just because two applicable share-level permissions overlap. Its documented rule selects the higher share-level permission among the default and the specific RBAC grant. An actual deny could still arise from network, authentication or NTFS constraints, but no such conflict is described here; deleting assignments is not the required explanation.

D:

Azure Files SMB still applies share-level authorization before directory and file ACL checks. NTFS Modify cannot simply eliminate the Azure share-level access decision, and an ACL alone cannot substitute for an appropriate share permission. In this case both layers permit modification, but the effective share-level permission comes from the higher Elevated Contributor grant rather than from the folder ACL itself.

Microsoft Azure Administrator (AZ-104) Practice Tests

UP

SPECIAL OFFER: GET 10% OFF

This is ONE TIME OFFER

ExamSnap Discount Offer
Enter Your Email Address to Receive Your 10% Off Discount Code

A confirmation link will be sent to this email address to verify your login. *We value your privacy. We will not rent or sell your email address.

Download Free Demo of VCE Exam Simulator

Experience Avanset VCE Exam Simulator for yourself.

Simply submit your e-mail address below to get started with our interactive software demo of your free trial.

Free Demo Limits: In the demo version you will be able to access only first 5 questions from exam.